Her [Cindy Sheehan’s] conversion to left wing politics is the move of a lost soul.

To me, this seems harsh.Have you considered the possibility that she didn’t actually “convert” to left wing politics but progressed there logically and is learning whilst on the job?

Cindy has not displayed any real rational thought or dialopgue that allows one to describe her as making a logical progression to the left. She is a lost soul who is trying to make sense of the death of her son, and her far extreme move to the left was guided by radicals wliing to make full use of her. Her rhetoric is really incoherent. This alone removes herself from any real discussion or anyone really taking her serious.

Originally posted by servetus

By way of parallel, I am reminded of four American widows who lost their husbands on 9/11, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.As I see it, and despite the fact that they have been dubbed the (of course!) self-serving “witches of East Brunswick” by pundit Ann Coulter (in what passes as political commentary here in the Colonies), theirs was and remains less a conversion than a response to the tragedies of the moment.

Ann Coulter is a pit bull of the right wing, probably a Machiavellian (I would bet all the tea in CHina on that), I have no like for her and do not follower her much. The widows of 9/11 I do not see as a parallel given that have not gone on the deep end, ranting and raving and establishing shanty towns.

Originally posted by sevetus

Quote:

She has allowed herself to be used by the opposite spectrum of the status quo paradigm.

This may be so.But, one wonders, is there any public (political) personality of whom this could not be said?

In terms of predominant attributes, one could answer yes, but since the thread is not about general cases,but about Cindy Sheehan, I will pass on further comment.

Originally posted by servetus

Quote:

The left/right wing political paradigm is something created by the same authors and both parties have the same agenda and is kept in place to give the cattle/herd mentality and character that now makes up 95% of western thought something to do.

I think this point of yours has been largely overlooked and perhaps misunderstood.Could you please elaborate?Even as it is, and at least up to a point, I do tend to agree.At any rate, please explain this in more detail.

Thank you.

Serv

___________________________

I always vote, but all of my votes are votes of “no confidence.”

We live in a system, a hegelian dialectic, such that we are always presented with an idea, and its antithesis. Never anything in between. To go inbetween is considered "bad".

Let me give you examples:

The energy debate.

One side is about producing more oil, finding new reserves, increasing the influence of the oil moguls, trying to build more refineries, etc, etc, etc.

The other side is about the government buying up public land to save it from drilling, making it harder for anyone wanting to build new refineries (nearly impossibe), anti corporate and anti big business (they are under the impression they are in the "buck the system" rebel crowd), etc, etc.

But no one is having the serious discussion about any of the new alternative technologies and the time line for implementation. You might have a few small discussions, and brief mentions, but the lions share of the issue goes to these two opposite poles, backed by the two opposite parties.

In the end, the two groups will achieve the same agenda. The people in the lower realms of participation really think they are fighting evil (the other side).

The last presidential election.

Out of all of the possible candidates for president, we are presented with two. Skull and bones only chooses like 14 or 17 people per year out of the junior classes at Yale. And the two candidates presented just happen, by accident, to be skull and bones initiates.

The republican choice is the image of a Texas rancher, which is far from the real truth. This is not by accident. He is also third generation skull and bones.

The democrats are given the staunch new englander, who is connected with old family money, and a skull and bones.

Between the two, the only difference are shallow, but enough to allow the herd like faithful polarize and believe they are really fighting a battle of evil against one another.

Reality: The two are no different.

Servetus, a few years ago I realized that the left/right paradigm is a scam, and the examples I gave you are only simple exmaples that allow me to conclude that the best path is the one I choose based upon my belief in Gd and not what has been handed to me.

Best Wishes

Bismillah,

Cindy is just a person, a mother, a daugher, an ex-wife, living her life with the cards she has been dealt doing the best that she can.

I can see right away that if I were in her place that I would be attacked as quickly as she. Why define her? Why say she is trying to be the symbol against Bush? She has feelings and beliefs that she is acting on and some people decided to help her. But she still is valid because she is again, just a person living her life. What could be invalid about that?

Salaamu Alaykum

Al-Hamdulillah (From a Married Muslimah) La Howla Wa La Quwata Illa BiLLah - There is no Effort or Power except with Allah's Will.

Assalamu aleikum Andalus. I think much of our disagreement is over
misunderstanding. I am not saying the US is soley responsible for the
problems in these countries at the time of US intervention, I am
saying the US is soley responsible for its own interventions in these
countries and is therefore soley responsible for the results of its
interventions.

Like most people in the world today, I see the US is soley responsible
for the present state of chaos in Iraq. It alone moved to invade and
remove Saddam Hussein, it alone decided to gather support from the
coalition of the willing, by lying convincingly to them, and perhaps
offering them large bounties in return for their participation.

I’m glad you think the US is not a democracy. I wish you could prove
it and at the same time define for us what exactly a democracy is,
and why the US is so keen to spread it all over the rest of the world.

“I have chosen, I have chosen to remove myself from both evils, and
both wrongs, and if I die alone with my views, then I die with a clear
heart and mind.”

I find this very interesting, since you have found a way to remove
yourself from the present hegellian false dichotomy of political
paradigms, and since you believe you have no sacred cows, please
tell us why are you bothering to reply to any of these posts? If you
have found a way to remove yourself from both evils, in theory
shouldn’t you be helping us to do the same? I mean, wouldn’t it be a
wonderful world if we could all sit back and say; “ah yes, it is just
another manifestation of those dread hegellian false dichotomies” …?

“The problem is that in todays poltical spectrum, decent [sic] from
the given paradigm is not tolerated. You feel I have defneded [sic] US
policy, when indeed I have not. Why? Because you are so conditioned
to argue with the anti-thesis of your beliefs.”

-Good point, I’ll watch out for those antithesis kneejerk reactions, if
you’ll watch out for your spelling.

“Opinionated and nit picking, and completely debatable. But given its
irrelevance to the thread, I will simply pass.”

I used to think being opinionated was a bad thing. Then I realised
that having no opinion at all was worse. And please, if you decide to
just ‘pass’, then pass, meaning: don’t bother even acknowledging
the statement. It wastes space.

“Proof: You and whisper have difficulty with my position, because
your backgrounds and assumptions no longer work”
-Mashallah I wish this were true. Because if it were, we would have
reached the much yearned for ‘something’ which must replace the
present political right-left parqadigm. But you see, Andalus, our
problem is that we cannot DEFINE your position. If you are free from
the clutches of hegellian false dichotomies then you would also be
free from the language which defines them, and presumably be able
to define EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Because if you are
neither with one nor the other, then I think you are in purgatory,
heaven or well, sitting on the fence and observing the rest of us
stuck in our hegellian false dichotomies.

Now, Andalus I must ask you to abide by your own recommendations
and not post when you are inflamed, since the misspellings in your
reply to Whisper are too numerous and infantile, and are very
distracting. E.g:
Irrevant, grandstadning, abolsute, turh, theoglical triva, aksed,
repsond, wreckless, naitonality

“We live in a system, a hegelian dialectic, such that we are always
presented with an idea, and its antithesis. Never anything in
between. To go inbetween is considered "bad".”

-Andalus, please, define the bit in the middle, what is in between?
Once you have progressed further than your readings on Hegel,
perhaps you could add something more constructive to the debate.
At the moment, it is as though you just reached the subject in your
studies and have been seduced by it (Hegel).

“Let me give you examples:

The energy debate.

One side is about producing more oil, finding new reserves,
increasing the influence of the oil moguls, trying to build more
refineries, etc, etc, etc.

The other side is about the government buying up public land to
save it from drilling, making it harder for anyone wanting to build
new refineries (nearly impossibe), anti corporate and anti big
business (they are under the impression they are in the "buck the
system" rebel crowd), etc, etc.

But no one is having the serious discussion about any of the new
alternative technologies and the time line for implementation. You
might have a few small discussions, and brief mentions, but the lions
share of the issue goes to these two opposite poles, backed by the
two opposite parties.”

-Here, you are completely wrong, and have definitely fallen into the
trap of false dichotomies by simplifying the present debate on
energy. If you were a participant on any of the related forums, I could
take you up on these assumptions, but since you only seem to know
as much about the energy crisis as you have gathered from main
stream American media, I shall have to recommend you do a little
extra research: www.peakoil.com for example, and
www.energybulletin.net

And finally, Andalus, I have noted with interest Cassandra’s post. I
too am questioning your ability to hold the post of Moderator.

I agree that capitalism is exploitive. So what? How is it irrevant to your claims about me? I asked you to make a point, but you cannot resist grandstadning with an editorial.

I am really sorry.

I didn’t mean to cause such typing tremors with my post.

My friend, my post had just covered Cap It Allitis and a mothers’ dignity, which you seem to be trashing with some hard Right Winger’s tools. Please, step out of your box and read it with a bit of cool instead of playing a total American.

SO who should Americans support?

Peace, Human Rights and the International Law.

You just stated abolsute nonsense. The turh is, you have no argument, only confrontation. Nice attempt to deflect with theoglical triva.

Sir, one day, you might grow out of these industrial formats and realise that in older, mature cultures, people work wonders just with this essence that you are quick to bin as “nonsense”.

Thats because you have been conditioned and your ignorance, and arrogance, born out of the delusion that has conditioned you, prevents you from thinking beyond the crude paradigm that you revel in, and worship like a gd.

Are you trying to lay claim to being the only specimen on our earth that has, for one reason or another, been left unconditioned?

Let’s stop punishing the poor key-board and keep people from thinking what they have started to think of our moderators.

Please have a look at your post below and at least try and cover it with something a bit decent if not entirely sensible.

If you think I am a neocon, then demonstrate it. I already aksed you to. But so far, you only repsond with empty, and wreckless dribble.

More meaningless rantings. Yes, I am American. Now what?

What naitonality would you like for the world? British? Afhgan? Saudi? French? Anything but Amreican?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

Andalus: It is the mark of a cultured mind to be able to do so without finding it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks.

We have already seen how you dispatched Aquinian just because the two of you were having a cat fight, after only a few posts almost completely between the two of you, while it had taken almost 800 posts before a concerted boycott managed to get Muslima banned. I wrote a "report" about it at the time displaying my disgust.

The two were completely different.

Aquinian was "dispatched" due to his patterns of "bad intentions", using the threads to insult the Prophet (saw) when he was unable to make good on his claims. He was not Muslim, his pattern was not to learn but to hurl "propoganda". I was one of others who wanted him gone.

Originally posted by cassandra

As a moderator, I would have thought that it would behoove you to set an example, not refer to a long standing member as "sophomoric" etc., etc., ad nauseum.

As a moderator, I am also a participant. I call a spade a spade. My labeling was correct. My title as moderator does not imply that I must agree with you and your poltics. This is the real issue, hidden under the guise of disatisfaction. (ad nauseum is interesting term as in logic, one could directly apply it to posts of the one who I referred to as "sophmororic".)

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

Her [Cindy Sheehan’s] conversion to left wing politics is the move of a lost soul.

I wrote:

To me, this seems harsh. Have you considered the possibility that she didn’t actually “convert” to left wing politics but progressed there logically and is learning whilst on the job?

You wrote:

Cindy has not displayed any real rational thought or dialogue that allows one to describe her as making a logical progression to the left ...

That was funny (and the mistake in this case is mine). It may have been a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to be overly generous and to actually impute logic to Ms. Sheehan [smile]. Please allow me to rephrase my statement: have you considered the possibility that Cindy Sheehan naturally moved to the left and is learning whilst on the job? I know very little about her or the scandals that surround her (I killed my television in '91 and severely restrict my mass media intake). How many of us had heard of Paul Wolfowitz, for example, before 9/11 and the subsequent American forays first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq? I don't think I had. We've all had to educate ourselves and some of us, I think Cindy Sheehan is an example, are doing it, perhaps at times even messily, on the job.

You wrote:

She is a lost soul who is trying to make sense of the death of her son, and her far extreme move to the left was guided by radicals wliing to make full use of her.

Again, to me, this seems harsh.

You wrote:

Her rhetoric is really incoherent. This alone removes herself from any real discussion or anyone really taking her serious.

I read this opening post of hers and wouldn't call it incoherent, though the points she makes are obviously arguable. Beyond that, I read her letter in the thread entitled "Mamas don't" and would rate it both coherent and impassioned (these are the only two things from her that I have read).

You wrote:

Ann Coulter is a pit bull of the right wing, probably a Machiavellian (I would bet all the tea in CHina on that), I have no like for her and do not follower her much. The widows of 9/11 I do not see as a parallel given that have not gone on the deep end, ranting and raving and establishing shanty towns.

I agree with your view of Ann Coulter and, as I said, this is what passes for political commentary at times here in the States. But still, from what I understand, Ann Coulter would take issue with your assessment of the widows and thinks the "witches of East Brunswick" are more than a bit off. She has gone so far as to suggest that the troublesome widows, who had the gall to push for an official investigation into 9/11 and who have since expressed their concerns about the results, are simply self-serving and grand-standing. What's more, says Ann Coulter, they probably were glad to lose their husbands in the flames of the WTC because, had it not been for their husbands' deaths, the widows themselves would not have been brought into the political spotlight, etc., etc. I may have gotten some of this political gossip and pig manure wrong, but that is the gist of it.

I have to sign off now, but, at some point, I would like to further discuss the Hegelian dialectic. I think we are rather close in our viewpoints.

Thank you, again, for responding and I am pleased to meet you and to become better acquainted.

Assalamu aleikum Andalus. I think much of our disagreement is over misunderstanding. I am not saying the US is soley responsible for the problems in these countries at the time of US intervention, I am saying the US is soley responsible for its own interventions in these countries and is therefore soley responsible for the results of its interventions.

Like most people in the world today, I see the US is soley responsible for the present state of chaos in Iraq. It alone moved to invade and remove Saddam Hussein, it alone decided to gather support from the coalition of the willing, by lying convincingly to them, and perhaps offering them large bounties in return for their participation.

I agree that the US is the culprit for these problems, but problems go beyond this, and countries like France and Germany and RUssia all had their hand in bolstering Saddam Hussein and greatly profiting on the scam "food for oil". The notion that somehow other western countries are enlightened and removed from the problems of Iraq is a joke.

And lets not forget that Muslim Arabs were also complicit who completely went along with the regime and aided him and torturing and murdering their own people. I agree that the US has created a terrible set of events, but I also know that finger pointing need not stay with the US.

Lets not forget that the British set into motion many of the problems seen today. When I point my fingers for problems in Iraq, I have many targets to "point at".

Originally posted by duende

I’m glad you think the US is not a democracy. I wish you could prove it and at the same time define for us what exactly a democracy is, and why the US is so keen to spread it all over the rest of the world.

In this case, I cannot prove a negative. It would be impossible, logically.

I can tell you that no one will find the word "democracy" in the Constitution or the Decleration of Independence. I can also tell you that you will find in Article IV, Section 4, "....to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Furthermore, I can tell you that James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

As a child when I would take the pledge of allegiance, I think about the statement, "..to the Republic for which it stands".

The Battle Hym of the Republic, is not "of the Democracy".

There is ample evidence to suggest that the founding fathers of the US were against "democracy".

John Adams stated, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide." (1814)

To anyone who says that the US is a democracy, I say "rubbish", and if it is a "democracy", then the founding fathers are greatly dissapointed.

To anyone who says there is not difference between a Republic, in terms of what the framers intended, and democracy, I also say "rubbish".

Originally posted by duende

“I have chosen, I have chosen to remove myself from both evils, and both wrongs, and if I die alone with my views, then I die with a clear heart and mind.”

I find this very interesting, since you have found a way to remove yourself from the present hegellian false dichotomy of political paradigms, and since you believe you have no sacred cows, please tell us why are you bothering to reply to any of these posts?

You deny disparity where it exists. Denying a sacred cow does not imply denying what is right or wrong, or giving up your responsibility for distinguishing. Once more, I believe you are having trouble with the idea that one does not have to choose left or right. Your notion that refusing the false dichotomy means one gives up perception of right and wrong is gien to a misunderstanding of reality.

Originally posted by duende

If you have found a way to remove yourself from both evils, in theory shouldn’t you be helping us to do the same? I mean, wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we could all sit back and say; “ah yes, it is just another manifestation of those dread hegellian false dichotomies” …?

You have buried your assumption that there is no false dichotomy, and not choosing between the two means you have somehow chosen nothing. With that premise in mind while formulating your question and comment, I will move on.

Originally posted by duende

“The problem is that in todays poltical spectrum, decent [sic] from the given paradigm is not tolerated. You feel I have defneded [sic] US policy, when indeed I have not. Why? Because you are so conditioned to argue with the anti-thesis of your beliefs.”

-Good point, I’ll watch out for those antithesis kneejerk reactions, if you’ll watch out for your spelling.

Now you are quibbling.

Originally posted by duende

“Opinionated and nit picking, and completely debatable. But given its irrelevance to the thread, I will simply pass.”

I used to think being opinionated was a bad thing. Then I realised that having no opinion at all was worse. And please, if you decide to just ‘pass’, then pass, meaning: don’t bother even acknowledging the statement. It wastes space.

Interesting reponse, although cryptic and irrelevant.

Originally posted by duende

“Proof: You and whisper have difficulty with my position, because your backgrounds and assumptions no longer work” -Mashallah I wish this were true. Because if it were, we would have reached the much yearned for ‘something’ which must replace the present political right-left parqadigm.

Something is "common sense". You are so conditioned that your beliefs have to have a single party of affiliation, one of the few that are offered. Even some of the founding fathers of the US did not think a two party system would be a good idea.

Choosing right and wrong has become a chore and a bore, without a poltical wing to give alliegance to, it seems you are lost without hope? Come Duende, you are a very intelligent person. You cannot truly believe what you just responded with.

Originally posted by duende

But you see, Andalus, our problem is that we cannot DEFINE your position. If you are free from the clutches of hegellian false dichotomies then you would also be free from the language which defines them, and presumably be able to define EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Because if you are neither with one nor the other, then I think you are in purgatory, heaven or well, sitting on the fence and observing the rest of us stuck in our hegellian false dichotomies.

Once more you comments take the assumption that there is no false dichotomy, meaning that no other choice exists.

My position has been present in the dialogue I have had on this thread. If you want to know more, ask me questions. I have a brain and a mind, and I do not need a "collective" to represent me. I am an individual.

Originally posted by duende

Now, Andalus I must ask you to abide by your own recommendations and not post when you are inflamed, since the misspellings in your reply to Whisper are too numerous and infantile, and are very distracting. E.g: Irrevant, grandstadning, abolsute, turh, theoglical triva, aksed, repsond, wreckless, naitonality

Now duende, you are quibbling. Misspellings have nothing to do with inflammation.

Misspellings are a function of time. When I have time, I check, when I have no time, I could care less.

Originally posted by duende

“We live in a system, a hegelian dialectic, such that we are always presented with an idea, and its antithesis. Never anything in between. To go inbetween is considered "bad".”

-Andalus, please, define the bit in the middle, what is in between? Once you have progressed further than your readings on Hegel, perhaps you could add something more constructive to the debate. At the moment, it is as though you just reached the subject in your studies and have been seduced by it (Hegel).

More irrelevant quibbling. It is as if you have nothing of substance to offer, that you must look for spelling mistakes, and ideas you dislike.

My time line for reading Hegel, or at what part of y life I have read him, or any other thinker, is now in the spotlight for you, as if it is an actual issue, when it is simply a deflection.

Middle of the road is that path that does not touch either side. left or right. It is not middle of the fence, it is "common sense". If you want me to define common sense, then you truly are lost.

Originally posted by duende

“Let me give you examples:

The energy debate.

One side is about producing more oil, finding new reserves, increasing the influence of the oil moguls, trying to build more refineries, etc, etc, etc.

The other side is about the government buying up public land to save it from drilling, making it harder for anyone wanting to build new refineries (nearly impossibe), anti corporate and anti big business (they are under the impression they are in the "buck the system" rebel crowd), etc, etc.

But no one is having the serious discussion about any of the new alternative technologies and the time line for implementation. You might have a few small discussions, and brief mentions, but the lions share of the issue goes to these two opposite poles, backed by the two opposite parties.”

-Here, you are completely wrong, and have definitely fallen into the trap of false dichotomies by simplifying the present debate on energy. If you were a participant on any of the related forums, I could take you up on these assumptions, but since you only seem to know as much about the energy crisis as you have gathered from main stream American media, I shall have to recommend you do a little extra research: www.peakoil.com for example, and www.energybulletin.net

False assumption. I did not claim that the example was a detalied analysis taking the rest of the world into account. You are trying to quibble again. I stated a general example, including only the domintating attributes, and it was addressed to servetus, and it was about the US. Please take time to study what is claimed and what is implied, and be mindful of the context. The example is accurate in the general sense of what I wanted to demonstrate, in its context.

Originally posted by duende

And finally, Andalus, I have noted with interest Cassandra’s post. I too am questioning your ability to hold the post of Moderator.

No, the real issue at hand is my views. Lets be honest. You are questioning my ability to go along with the world views of the click which permeates this forum. My time is becoming scarce, and in the next two weeks I will be isolated to simply "moderating" and less participation. So the thread will once more be free to make any unchallenged, unquestioned, biased assertions it wishes, and high five one another for the best "The US is the sole cause of problems for the rest of the world" one liners.

Cassarda is mad because of my thread with her friend, and her willingness to excuse Aquinian as some kind of victim is riotous. Not to mention her lop sided view of Muslimah also sums up her biased view.

Their expulsions were done appropriately with discussion.

I will take your views on my position of moderator under advisement.

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.